Age 7 government child trust fund payments not being released!!!

liam8282

I don't think it is the fact that people are getting the sure start grants that bothers people so much, it is the fact that they are getting this on top of all the other benefits they receive.

If they have been assessed that they are entitled to the maximum sure start grant, they are more than likely already receiving a hefty chunk in benefits to start off with, be that in one of the many possible forms of benefits they could receive.

The benefits received in discounted rent etc. should also be considered, as well as the cash amounts a person is receiving.

Personally, I don't agree with people profiting from any form of benefits, (my personal idea of profiting would be earning more in benefits than they would from a full time job on minimum wage).

My idea on benefits would be to limit any families claim to an amount under that of the equivalent able bodied adults in the household earnings potential.

So say an average family, 2 x adults, x 35hours pw x 52 x £5.93 = £21585.20

In all fairness the minimum wage is set by the government at a level which people are expected to live on, so why does this same principal not apply to benefits?

Why should a worker get less than a non worker?

ultrawomble

Percy1983 wrote: »

To put it quite simply if you decide your not going to contribute ever you should have enough for basic accommodation (4 walls, roof, heating and running water) and basic food. You should not have enough money for Sky TV, Flatscreen TV's PS3's etc.

No problems with that.

Percy1983 wrote: »

The end of the day the lifestyle of the the unemployed should not be comparable to me and my better half who have worked hard for qualifications and the jobs that follow, but it is.

Agree with that also, but with the qualifier that how do you actually know that they have a comparable lifestyle i.e. you've actually experienced it rather than read it in a tabloid splash.

Percy1983 wrote: »

You can make a living out of having children and that is a pure and simple fact,

Good luck to them. They're far braver than I am, and I've only got the one. Sleep deprivation, worry and stress, loss of personal freedom and social life etc. come as part of the package. If anybody thinks that having kids would be an easy route to money then I'd say they haven't got any.

Percy1983 wrote: »

you should not be able to make a living out of the government all the government should do is help you survive.

No problems with that. The tabloid examples are the exception to the rule, that is why they make the headlines.

Percy1983 wrote: »

All luxuries should have to be earned not reward for doing nothing.

No problems with that.

Please also remember that today's children are tomorrow's tax-payers. They'll (hopefully) be paying the taxes that will keep us in our dotage.

kelloggs36

Deepmistrust wrote: »

A working person will still have their WTC increased (assuming they qualify for WTC) upon the birth of another child. WTC are paid to working families. IS is paid to non-working families.

As I've asked the previous poster, what do you suggest the children of unemployed workers eat, if (correct me if I'm wrong) as you seem to be calling for no benefits to be paid to non-working families if the child was born during a period of unemployment?

But many people don't qualify for wtc - we don't, so we would get no extra money for having more children; as we know we can't afford to have more, we won't, but if we were on benefits we would gain so much more than it costs so we would be quids in! It is a ridiculous system where benefits reward people for having children - as I said if you have a large family already and need to claim because you lose your job, then yes, I believe that you should get it, but not to keep paying out purely because you choose to have more children and make the taxpayer pay for it.

Deepmistrust

kelloggs36 wrote: »

But many people don't qualify for wtc - we don't, so we would get no extra money for having more children; as we know we can't afford to have more, we won't, but if we were on benefits we would gain so much more than it costs so we would be quids in! It is a ridiculous system where benefits reward people for having children - as I said if you have a large family already and need to claim because you lose your job, then yes, I believe that you should get it, but not to keep paying out purely because you choose to have more children and make the taxpayer pay for it.

If you don't already qualify for wtc, then you already earn enough to support a family I assume? wtc tops up low-income wages, why do you think you are hard done to, if you already earn far more than lower paid workers, and thus more than capable of supporting any children on your higher salary?

I accept there are always going to be certain exact circumstances that are the exception to the general rule, and those people are always going to feel hard done too. But in general, WTC is simply a top-up for low income families to bring their incomes to a liveable wage.

If there was no WTC, those families would qualify for other assistance anyway.

It's is always more beneficial to increase earnings as WTC does not drop pound for pound that you earn.

In your scenario, I assume you are talking about redundancy etc? Well those people will also qualify for redundacy pay, IS etc etc.

WTC is for working families. Hence W(TC) = Working.

Percy1983

But it is simple, I work so I won't get paid to have children yet somebody who chooses not to work will get paid to have children...

Why should I have to pay for my own children and somebody else's?

As mentioned I am not against topping up low incomes when people are working, but if not working what have they done to deserve that money?

Going back to labours 'reward for nothing' schemes, glad they are out.

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

If you don't already qualify for wtc, then you already earn enough to support a family I assume? wtc tops up low-income wages, why do you think you are hard done to, if you already earn far more than lower paid workers, and thus more than capable of supporting any children on your higher salary?

I accept there are always going to be certain exact circumstances that are the exception to the general rule, and those people are always going to feel hard done too. But in general, WTC is simply a top-up for low income families to bring their incomes to a liveable wage.

If there was no WTC, those families would qualify for other assistance anyway.

It's is always more beneficial to increase earnings as WTC does not drop pound for pound that you earn.

In your scenario, I assume you are talking about redundancy etc? Well those people will also qualify for redundacy pay, IS etc etc.

WTC is for working families. Hence W(TC) = Working.

The current benefits system makes it advantageous for certain people to be on benefits, rather than work.

For starters a couple can work the minimum 16 hours, between them, to qualify for WTC. Not really that much of an effort to support your family, but a very easy way to qualify for yet another benefit, on top of other benefits they will already be receiving.

All in all, when all benefits received are calculated, certain people can clearly see they are better off not working. Be that the cash benefits they receive, discounted rents, free childcare, free prescriptions....... I don't know exactly what people receive.

The high level of benefits is resulting in more and more people choosing to live off benefits rather than work.

This is where the system is failing, people should never be better off on benefits, there is just no incentive for these people to work.

Indie_Kid

liam8282 wrote: »

free childcare.

80% is paid via the childcare element of WTC. The only people that qualify for free child care is the free 15 hours for 3 year olds per week.

liam8282

sh1305 wrote: »

80% is paid via the childcare element of WTC. The only people that qualify for free child care is the free 15 hours for 3 year olds per week.

Which is why I wrote:

"I don't know exactly what people receive."

80% childcare paid is still a massive benefit.

There will no doubt be a lot more benefits that people receive that I don't know, and some of the things I have said may be wrong.

daska

liam8282 wrote: »

Which is why I wrote:

"I don't know exactly what people receive."

80% childcare paid is still a massive benefit.

There will no doubt be a lot more benefits that people receive that I don't know, and some of the things I have said may be wrong.

Here are some figures for you:

I have recently been employing someone at 30 hours a week at minimum wage (£5.80/hour) which less tax/NI works out at just over £155/week. I'm guessing that 35 hours would work out at about £170/week

The childcare I use which is by no means the most expensive in the area charges £36/day = £180/week (not including lunch/snacks)

Massive benefit? Or enough to make working worthwhile?

liam8282

daska wrote: »

Here are some figures for you:

I have recently been employing someone at 30 hours a week at minimum wage (£5.80/hour) which less tax/NI works out at just over £155/week. I'm guessing that 35 hours would work out at about £170/week

The childcare I use which is by no means the most expensive in the area charges £36/day = £180/week (not including lunch/snacks)

Massive benefit? Or enough to make working worthwhile?

You are only considering childcare, when I did mention other benefits including this.

It is wrong to try and manipulate what somebody has written by extracting only part of a sentence and to ignore everything else.

I would say a £144 per week benefit is a massive benefit in anyones eyes, also when you start to add this to WTC, CTC, Child Benefit, rent reduction, the list goes on..................


However, in the case you mentioned where the person is going out to work, I do think that they are the people that the current benefits system was designed to support.


But at the moment is far to easy for people to abuse and gain from.